69 BNS | Man Unable To Marry Does Not Automatically Mean False Promise Of Marriage, But Intent Is For Trial To Decide: MP High Court

MADHYA PRADESH: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash a Section 69 BNS case against a male bank manager, holding that whether a promise of marriage was false from the beginning must be determined through evidence during trial.

Justice Himanshu Joshi, in an order dated September 28, 2026, dismissed the man's petition to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings arising from his relationship with a female colleague.

The case involved two State Bank of India managers. The woman, aged about 32, alleged that the man promised to marry her in September 2022 and later had physical relations with her.

Read Also:- Section 69 BNS: Legal Protection or Weapon Against Men?

According to the complaint, the two met through a common friend and later communicated via social media and phone calls. The woman alleged that the man established physical relations with her on January 23, 2023, after assuring her of marriage.

She further alleged that their families discussed marriage, but the man's mother declined the proposal. Despite this, their relationship continued, with further alleged physical relations in Bhopal, Darjeeling and other places.

In November 2025, the man allegedly informed her that his family had selected another woman for marriage. After unsuccessful attempts to persuade him, she registered FIR No. 03/2026 under Section 69 BNS at Mahila Police Station, Mandla, on January 17, 2026.

The man approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 528 BNSS, seeking to quash the FIR and pending criminal proceedings.

Read Also:- False 69 BNS Case| “Woman’s Statements Seems To Be False And Contradicting”: Delhi Court Discharges Man In Promise-To-Marry Case

His lawyer argued that both individuals were mature, educated and financially independent adults who had voluntarily maintained a relationship for several years.

The defence maintained that the man had genuinely intended to marry the woman, as demonstrated by matrimonial discussions between their families. It also submitted that the relationship had ended mutually and that the criminal complaint followed his decision to marry someone else.

The man relied on a legal notice dated January 10, 2026, his father's complaint, medical records, WhatsApp conversations and statements recorded during the investigation to support his defence.

Read Also:- False Promise of Marriage | Consensual Romantic Relationship Between Housemaid and Master: Telangana HC Quashes FIR U/S 69 BNS

However, the State and the complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR contained specific allegations of physical relations based on a promise of marriage. They submitted that the man's intention could only be determined after examining the evidence.

The High Court clarified the legal distinction between a failed promise of marriage and a false promise made to obtain consent.

The Court observed:

"It is well settled that every failure to fulfil a promise of marriage does not constitute a false promise for the purpose of criminal liability. It must be shown that the promise was false when made, that the maker had no intention of fulfilling it at that time and that such false promise had a direct nexus with the consent for the sexual act. A subsequent refusal or inability to marry, by itself, is not sufficient."

The Court further held that whether the man genuinely intended to marry the complainant or deliberately made promises to obtain her consent required examination of the evidence during trial.

It also clarified that the woman's education and financial independence did not automatically rule out the possibility of consent being obtained through deception.

The Court stated:

"The fact that the prosecutrix is an educated and financially independent bank manager also does not, by itself, determine whether her consent was allegedly obtained by deception. Likewise, the fact that matrimonial negotiations took place cannot conclusively establish absence of dishonest intention. Whether such conduct demonstrates a genuine intention to marry throughout the relevant period is a matter for appreciation of evidence. This Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a comparative assessment of the rival versions."

The High Court also examined the sequence of events, including the man's legal notice dated January 10, engagement on January 11 and FIR registered on January 17, 2026.

It held that this sequence alone did not establish that the criminal complaint was malicious.

Since the investigation was complete, a charge sheet had been filed, and Sessions Trial No. 24/2026 was pending, the Court found no sufficient ground to terminate the prosecution.

Importantly, the Court left the man free to establish during trial that the relationship was consensual, the marriage negotiations were genuine, and he had no dishonest intention from the beginning.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the Section 528 BNSS quashing petition, allowing the Section 69 BNS criminal proceedings to continue without making any final finding of guilt against the accused.

Read Also:- Section 69 Bns Judgements

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

COUNSEL DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Failed Marriage Is Not A Criminal Offence: A man cannot be held criminally liable merely because he refuses or fails to marry his partner.
• Breakup Doesn't Prove Deception: The prosecution must establish that the man never intended to marry and deliberately made a false promise to obtain consent.
• Years Of Relationship, Now A Criminal Trial: Despite matrimonial discussions between both families, the man faces prosecution under Section 69 BNS.
• Educated Woman Can Still Claim Deception: The High Court held that a financially independent female bank manager's education does not automatically rule out allegations of consent obtained through deception.
• Allegations Are Not Convictions: The MP High Court refused to quash the FIR, but did not find the man guilty. A failed relationship alone cannot establish a man's criminal guilt.